Roe v. Wade - An Object Lesson

Today is the 40th Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision which practically legalized abortion in the United States. Looking back on this decision, there is some value in evaluating it from the prism of what it means to be a human being. As we will see, how you see human beings and how you describe them has huge effects on how you treat those around you.

For the purpose of this post, I am going to assume that unborn babies are human. I'll grant that in a discussion about the morality of abortion this would be the key point. However, that is not the discussion that I'm aiming for in this post.

There are two basic ways to view human beings. They are either the highest entity in the world or they are the highest created creature. The difference between these two literally ends up being the difference between life and death.

When you hold to the first view of humanity, the foundation of the value system is strength - physical, mental, ability to build things ect. Whatever gives you an edge over those around you, that is what gives you value. After all, that's how humanity in the first place has been valued as the highest entity on the globe. Unfortunately, that also means that human beings which either have no value, no "edge" or ability to defend themselves, don't need to stay alive. From this view, the Roe v. Wade decision makes sense. If an unborn baby doesn't seem to be worth the costs of being born and raised - costs such as money, pain, effort, time - then why keep it alive? Kill it and save the expense.

The other view of humanity operates on the value system of the Creator. If humans are the highest creature, it is because the Creator values them as His highest creation. Taken from the Christian view of the world, the value that the Creator has placed on humanity is that it is made in his image. This being the case, to be human is to be valuable - irregardless of the practical value they appear to add to the world. From this perspective, the Roe v. Wade decision is a devastating tragedy. It is the legal permission to kill people - legal permission to destroy value.

Examining the merits of each viewpoint isn't the goal of this post - though it is something that you should do if you haven't by this point. Instead, the goal is to challenge us to pay more attention to how we define what it means to be human and then consider the results of our definitions. As esoteric as the question may sound, "What does it mean to be human" has serious practicality to all of our lives. Failing to answer this question and have a good reason for that answer leaves the floor wide open for others to answer it - and their answer might not be one that you will be able to live with.

What do you think it means to be a human and why have you come to that conclusion? How does this affect the way you interact with those around you? There are quite a few facets here - not all of them are as drastic as the example that my post centered around. Feel free to branch the conversation out to other aspects of what it means to be human by leaving a comment - your thoughts are very welcome!